ArticlePloS one2019
Outcomes of acute coronary syndrome patients with concurrent extra-cardiac vascular disease in the era of transradial coronary intervention: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of extracardiac vascular disease on outcomes of 1.4 million patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2022Article
- Percutaneous coronary intervention in the polyvascular patient remains a high-risk procedure.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2022Article
- Association Between Radial Versus Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Long-Term Mortality.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Machine Learning to Predict Long-Term Cardiac-Relative Prognosis in Patients With Extra-Cardiac Vascular Disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtra-cardiac vascular diseases (ECVDs), such as cerebrovascular disease (CVD) or peripheral arterial disease (PAD), are frequently observed among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, it is not clear how these conditions affect patient outcomes in the era of transradial coronary intervention (TRI). METHODS AND
resultsAmong 7,980 patients with ACS whose data were extracted from the multicenter Japanese percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry between August 2008 and March 2017, 888 (11.1%) had one concurrent ECVD (either PAD [345 patients: 4.3%] or CVD [543 patients; 6.8%]), while 87 patients (1.1%) had both PAD and CVD. Overall, the presence of ECVD was associated with a higher risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.728; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.183-2.524) and bleeding complications (OR: 1.430; 95% CI: 1.028-2.004). There was evidence of interaction between ECVD severity and procedural access site on bleeding complication on the additive scale (relative excess risk due to interaction: 0.669, 95% CI: -0.563-1.900) and on the multiplicative scale (OR: 2.105; 95% CI: 1.075-4.122). While the incidence of death among patients with ECVD remained constant during the study period, bleeding complications among patients with ECVD rapidly decreased from 2015 to 2017, in association with the increasing number of TRI.
conclusionsOverall, the presence of ECVD was a risk factor for adverse outcomes after PCI for ACS, both mortality and bleeding complications. In the most recent years, the incidence of bleeding complications among patients with ECVD decreased significantly coinciding with the rapid increase of TRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.